Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #7149

Re: Bug #751908, tox, and bin-only Python packages

Path	csiph.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: Bug #751908, tox, and bin-only Python packages
Date	Thu, 06 Aug 2015 17:30:03 +0200
Message-ID	<pUvhh-4zC-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<pUuOe-3M5-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	debian-python@lists.debian.org
Old-Return-Path	<smcv@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham
X-Policyd-Weight	NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 NOT_IN_BL_NJABL=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .debian. - helo: .illusion.pseudorandom. - helo-domain: .pseudorandom.) FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=0; rate: -5
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status	N1110
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.1.0
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/12453
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	38
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:20:42 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID	<55C37B4A.90608@debian.org>
X-Original-References	<20150806105051.3617b186@limelight.wooz.org>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:7149

Show key headers only | View raw

On 06/08/15 15:50, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> The example that sparked issue #751908 was tox, which when I initially
> packaged it, I called the binary package python-tox.  I did this because,
> while the package does not provide any publicly importable modules, I felt it
> was presumptuous to claim a rather generic name like 'tox' as the binary
> package.

If it's pollution in the flat namespace of packages, then it's pollution
in the flat namespace of "what's in $PATH". If it isn't, it isn't. Pick
one? :-)

> Should there be a naming convention for Python packages which only provide an
> executable?

Policy has this to say on the subject of a different flat global namespace:

"When scripts are installed into a directory in the system PATH, the
script name should not include an extension such as .sh or .pl that
denotes the scripting language currently used to implement it."

Does similar reasoning make sense for package names - the user of the
package is looking for the functionality of the package, not the
implementation language?

If disambiguation is needed due to a naming conflict, a descriptive
prefix/suffix might make more sense: "tox-tester" or "tox-python-tester"
would be in the same spirit as chromium-browser (now chromium) vs. the
game Chromium B.S.U. (now chromium-bsu), and nodejs vs. ax25-node
fighting over "node". (Note the subtle distinction that nodejs is *for
use with* JavaScript, not *written in* JavaScript.)

    S

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55C37B4A.90608@debian.org

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Bug #751908, tox, and bin-only Python packages Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2015-08-06 17:00 +0200
  Re: Bug #751908, tox, and bin-only Python packages Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2015-08-06 17:20 +0200
    Re: Bug #751908, tox, and bin-only Python packages Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr> - 2015-08-06 17:30 +0200
    Re: Bug #751908, tox, and bin-only Python packages Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2015-08-06 21:20 +0200
  Re: Bug #751908, tox, and bin-only Python packages Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2015-08-06 17:30 +0200
    Re: Bug #751908, tox, and bin-only Python packages Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2015-08-06 21:20 +0200

csiph-web